TeeJay

Personally, no... The sample used in Work has been altered, dropped down in tone slightly. The sitar, while still recognizable as such, is less 'tinny', so 'softer' on the ear. I also think Ms Rowland is more pleasing on the eye

I wondered what the riff might have been sampled from, and, on a forum, one person did name a track, and, the riff does sound very similar. However, a further comment, revealed "no indian song, all played, its just a sitar riff" I'm not normally a fan of remixes/covers, as I think it's uncreative. However, if the track adds something, improving on the original, then that's okay. Having listened to the original track, I have to say, that the remixed version is much better. It's worth watching even on mute, if just for the lovely Ms Rowland

As above, E0117/1950 (Serial numbers BB 1074729 OP 6576) Sapphire crystal, as yet unexploded.

From what I've seen, there are two case models of 127. One has the production number E0117/1950, the other has another production number. From what I understand, the E0117/1950 case is the one DSN sells, so possibly less chances of the crystal exploding. Of course, I might be wrong, but that's how things have appeared, reading the posts on the subject. As a side note, although I didn't get my 127 from DSN, and it has an Asian rather than Swiss movement, it is still the E0117/1950 case, and, to date, has not yet* exploded (about 4 months near constant wear) *Emphasis on 'yet' I fully expect the crystal to explode after pushing 'submit' just to prove me wrong

They're certainly more usefull

The stamps were rather nice too. I sent them to my mum (who collects foreign stamps )

Not stirring at all, that's very informative I'm just surprized that Neil logged on after publicly saying he wouldn't. No need for him to be short of people's shipping details Hope your watch turns up, I wonder how long you might have to wait for the Thai Post Office to respond to enquiries For the record, I've had stuff shipped from Thailand, and it arrived within a month

No problem, I've got a few possible options Should be a good one, hope you have a good one too

All's good here, thanks, just trying to track down a few costume pieces for an upcoming party

I can't imagine any gay man wearing either of those watches. A jock frat-boy-type, perhaps...

Glad to be of help How about on an SS Bracelet? Another good option rather than a strap

Oh dear, that poor old bugger really is quite confused If the verse says "heavens and Earth", thenthat is a measurement of both together, not just the earth... But moving on... The moon is half the size of the sun.

It would be very easy to justify... "I took my watch into this shop to have the bracelet adjusted. They started saying it was a fake and won't give it back to me..." You were the one who said they'd threaten to call the police... All I pointed out, is that they would have no rights to confiscate a watch, and if such a thing happened, the owner should report the AD to the police for theft. At the very least, they would likely give the watch back before the call was made. If the police did turn up, the law would be on the side of the owner, who has had their private property illegally seized I quite agree

How about a PAM 113?

Just to clarify that point: Neil was granted access to his PMs, and on open forum, refused to log onto the site to view them.. According to a member of the admin team, his PMs have been archived and emailed to him, so he would now have that information regardless of his access to this forum. Where people have argued with him in the past about issues, he has posted saved copies of those PMs/emails/etc, to support his points, so it is most likely he would have that information already stored, and of course, any new information, would have been emailed to him. Also, of course, if anyone does need to contact Neil to clarify their details, they can do so on RG. As DemonSlayer pointed out above, if Neil is having issues with his sight, which was his explanation for the problems with the group buy, then he should be taking steps to ensure that the products he sends are being checked by someone without impaired vision, rather than doing it himself. As mentioned previously, for someone who mentioned having problems with their vision, Neil has been quite active on RG since he was banned from this forum for threatening the Admin. I hope that activity is a sign that his vision is improving. [Edit for clarity]

I certainly wouldn't be handing one over for any other reason Posession of the reps themselves (without intent to supply) is not illegal (certainly not in the UK or US, although I do believe mere ownership of reps is illegal in Italy) In that regard, they are simply a person's personal property, which a store would have no right to confiscate (either if simply seen, or following a service) As always though, it's best not to take reps into ADs in the first place, or keep them under a sleeve if possible.

I'd phone the police myself, and say that a jewellery store was refusing to return my personal property. I wonder how keen they'd be to keep the watch then

Absolutely fantastic pictorial Many congratulations to you both

Dani, as DemonSlayer has pointed out: Take the hint. Ken has already closed one thread on this topic, so I suspect he will close this one too. Are you trying to get yourself disciplined for going against moderator's wishes? If people have no knowledge of this film, they cannot discuss it. It is Geert Wilder's film about the Qur'an. And what? If you want to learn about the Qur'an, read the Qur'an. All you will get from reading books about the Qur'an, or watching films about the Qur'an, is information tainted with the personal biasses of the authors. If you read the Qur'an itself, there will be no 'outside opinions', just the text itself. If you wish to learn about the Qur'an, that would be my recommendation to you. [Edit for spelling]

Given what is written in the Qur'an, I believe, that it is certainly a possibility. You are 'sure' of many things which are not correct Like all Humans, you have the free will to believe in Allah or not. That is your choice. I do not judge you by your choice. It is not my place to judge you by your choice.

At the end of the day, it's about mankind having free will. Free will to choose to submit, free will to choose not to submit. Of course, that's not to say that there won't be punishment for those who refuse to follow Allah's will, but, that's as with any system of laws: Those who refuse to obey them, are punished. Ultimately though, and something the hadithists tend to forget, is that it is Allah who will ultimately judge (and possibly forgive) those who choose not to believe in Him, not mankind to judge or punish

Absolutely so. [Edit to add] Technically speaking, they are rules which Allah laid down to be followed by all mankind, but, it is only those who actually submit to the will of Allah, (Muslims) who actually live by those rules. Afterall, all Islam means, is 'submission', and all Muslim means, is one who submits to the will of Allah. Of course, that is a rather 'conservative' Islamic opinion, and one which is itself over-ruled by one of the final suras in the Qur'an, which states there is no obligation in religion, and that people are free to believe and worship whoever they choose

Other than it being forbidden, it does not explain why. It's a bit like a parent saying "Do as I say, don't do as I do..." to a child. Not an explanation, just an instruction, which is expected to be obeyed. With regards eating carrion, it could be because decomposing flesh can harbour all sorts of biological nasties, so in some cases, simply not safe to eat. As for blood, I'm not too sure. It could be, similarly, that blood is one of the major disease carriers, so it could be a way of avoiding that. That would just be my own guess though. I think the thing which is often misunderstood about halal and haram, is that they are simply words meaning 'lawfull' and 'forbidden' (or to that effect) In Islamic practice, any meat (other than flesh of swine ) can be both halal and haram, depending on the method with which the animal died. For example, a kebab shop where I eat most days sells fried chicken, which tastes exactly like KFC (a good or bad thing, depending on one's tastes ) I was told by my brothers there, that the fried chicken is halal, but, the chicken nuggets and chicken burgers they sell, are not halal, because they are from a non halal supplier. Yet they are both chicken

Just a quick note, as God's name has been mentioned There is nothing in Islamic teaching which says that a person must eat meat. It is quite possible (and religiously permitted) for a Muslim to be a vegetarian. Indeed, the only commandments about meat, are the avoidance of blood and flesh of swine, and any animals which have died a traumatic death (or are already dead, ie eating carrion) So although Muslims do eat meat, they are not eating it 'for God's sake', so to speak